Prop 8 Protesters (video updated weekly with new video)
(click into picture for larger view)
UPDATE 11/12/08: (Reports added as news comes in)
- Watch church lady meet same-sex ‘marriage’ protesters
- Lesbians, condoms go wild in attack on Christian church
Pro-homosexual, pro-anarchy organization named Bash Back
____________________________________________
Neil on his blog wrote an article with excerpts from WorldNetDaily.com that talk about the anger rising with many Gays who are threatening physical harm. Although Christians have been tagged as the bigots, intolerant, and compared to the Taliban or the Crusades, many in the LGBT community are promising to do the very things they’ve accused Christians of doing.
Some are not taking responsibility for their actions while blaming the religious for taking away their right to marriage. Fortunately some are speaking out and trying to calm their counterparts. JoeMyGod (his blog name) is a gay man just as angry at the ‘religious’ but at least he went on a national (satellite) radio to denounce physical violence toward churches (see Neil’s article above). Will it be enough to stop those who truly want to cause violent acts? It was his blog that was mentioned in the WorldNetDaily article, where many gays have made threats of physical harm directed toward churches and individuals.
On a lesbian’s blog, I was compared to the Taliban, the Crusades when all I did was express my opinion. My blog was on her list of Yes on 8 Prop blogs for people to comment on. I was obliged to comment on hers. But here is what one of their writers on the blog wrote to me:
(From the Lez Get Real blog)
“But you did it based on your religious beliefs that I should believe as you do…
My being gay does not affect you in any way nor does me having all the rights you do… but you feel that because YOUR bible says being gay is wrong then there needs to be a law to make me see it that way as well.
You are in my book no better that a crusader who went to the Holy Land to covert Muslims or failing that kills them. I am sure from your discourse here you feel that is still your right as a good Christian as well.
You are a religious fanatic… no better then the Taliban… You are the kind of Christian that make Non Christian hate all Christians.
Now here is what is going on… today we had to cool down some of our readers over all of this crap you are doing to us…
Tonight a protest is being held down at the LA Mormon temple and we got a lot of comments from gays, who up till they had their rights stripped away by you and your ilk Tuesday were kind, sensible and peaceful people.
But today after you derived them of rights they had they were saying they were going down there and burn your temple down…
Now this is what happens when you oppress people with YOUR religion… even if you think you are doing them a favor…
You need to stop before this becomes more real then you can ever imagine… and they start bringing it to your churches and your homes like you did to ours.
We don’t want a war with you…we just want our rights… but if you keep this up a war and I mean a real war where people really get hurt is what you will have.”
That attitude may explain the actions of a few of those in that poll above. Most of the demonstrators were peaceful, but a few ended up crossing the police line that was drawn.
Paula, in that paragraph addressed to me, was on one hand talking about calming people down, but on the other hand, promised a war if they don’t get their rights to marriage. The threat was to HURT people if they didn’t get their way. That comment caused me to spend a little too much time on her blog as I should have just left it alone. (Okay, I’m not perfect!)
Not all gays feel that way and wouldn’t hurt a flea. But this is a warning that things may get much worse before they get better and for those of us whose churches were active in getting Yes on Prop 8 out, let’s just be careful.
But remember, let’s always strive for peace and do not set out to do to these gays as some of them want to do to us.
ADDENDUM: Just saw La Shawn Barber’s article on the same disturbance and please note: I agree with her that in spite of our support for no violence towards the Mormon temple, I still believe that it is NOT a historical Christian organization - but a cult. Do check out her excellent article.
You caused this by not being able to keep your religion in your church and your nose out of our bedrooms…
No one wanted to fight with you… you went out of your way to start this… you spent money.. al ot of money… money that would have been better served to helping the homeless or feeding the hungry.
It is you who won’t take responsibility for this situation we are all facing now.
By: Paula Brooks on November 7, 2008
at 1:29 pm
And you need to post the repost… that was was a first edit that does not say what I wanted to say it was why I took it down and minute later posted the new one….
but again you use what serves you to force your false religion down others throats…
By: Paula Brooks on November 7, 2008
at 1:33 pm
yes gays are heading to YOUR Churches this week…
Check out the schedule on our page to see if yours is one of them
By: Paula Brooks on November 7, 2008
at 1:36 pm
Paula, there are some level headed gays that I’ve seen posted on your blog, but you are definitely not one of them!
You are angry, vengeful and need to go somewhere for a few days and cool off. The people of California have spoken democratically. These people weren’t all Mormons, Christians and what have you. So you are acting a bit irrationally in wanting to target these churches.
You all look ridiculous trying to protest as we blacks did during the civil rights era. You are mostly well off, have food to eat, clothes to wear … I mean, there’s nothing stopping you from living! And you want to hurt people because your marriages have been put to a stop through votes?
I did repost your comment by the way.
Even though you did call my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a big mouth troublemaker on your blog, He still forgives you!
By: Carlotta on November 7, 2008
at 1:58 pm
Persecution for righteousness sake is alive and well. Expect it to continue and intensify in the days to come with Obama in office. That seems to be my fight right now. This is just the beginning of it for all Bible believing Christians.
By: Pamela on November 7, 2008
at 2:20 pm
Oh yes, Pam! Persecution is alive and well. We just need to remember Christ’s words when He says this:
By: Carlotta on November 7, 2008
at 2:59 pm
I’ve linked to your post from Prop 8 Challenge
By: Wayne on November 7, 2008
at 5:55 pm
Thanks Wayne!
By: Carlotta on November 7, 2008
at 6:08 pm
Proverbs 28:1 says..” The wicked man flees though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”
By: Wayne on November 7, 2008
at 10:01 pm
okay, i totally love your site. but the mormon church can’t really be classified as a cult. there isn’t any brainwashing involved. they believe in christ. they believe in agency. they believe in eternal families. no biggie.
a little research helps the understanding: lds.org
anyways, thank you for your good work. and for exposing the real hate in the debate.
you are awesome.
By: prop8discussion on November 8, 2008
at 12:13 am
Wayne, I loved that scripture you shared. Thank you!
Prop8, the Mormon people was not the target of my comment but the Mormon church and it’s teachings which because of their deviance from the scriptures and followings primarily from one man’s teachings, is classified as a cult.
There are many who attend Mormon churches who do believe in Christ as God and Savior who will be side by side with fellow believers in God’s kingdom. It’s the teachings that I and other Christians abhor, and not any individual person per se.
More on the LDS later.
By: Carlotta on November 8, 2008
at 1:56 am
I thought the cult comment was directed towards me. huffington post hit piece to break up the alliance
To all concerned I’ve also posted a Condemn the CTA, PGE funded home invasion ad!
By: Wayne on November 10, 2008
at 12:42 pm
Our alliances with organizations that we disagree with theologically become very sticky after it’s all said and done.
Hopefully, most will see that we are alliances in agreement only. Mormons work with Mormons, Muslims with Muslims and the rest with their own - as far as I know.
But clearly, the Huffington Post article is definitely trying to create a wedge between Jeremiah Films and the Mormon church.
By: Carlotta on November 10, 2008
at 1:00 pm
I’m not so sure it is over … I’ll be trying to follow it here and ADF will likely break a press release when something major happens.
Honestly, Jeremiah Films taking the heat may not be a bad thing, Prop 22 hit piece was against Baptist Churches.
By: Wayne on November 10, 2008
at 1:16 pm
Hmm…I think you’re right. Not a bad thing at all!
What is really beginning to irk me is the ‘Governator’s’ role in all of this. He is fueling the gays demonstrations when he should be calling for peace! (LA Times)
By: Carlotta on November 10, 2008
at 1:40 pm
I watched the video from start to finish and I don’t believe I saw any “threats” being made.
I think a demonstration outside the Mormon Temple is justified; the church certainly opposed same-sex couples (people who weren’t trying to take any action against Mormons) and encouraged its members to do so as well.
Certainly, the Mormons are not the only ones to blame. But churches like LDS, the Catholic Church, and the Saddleback Church represent viewpoint groups who can be protested for rhetorical purposes. All people who voted for Proposition 8 are equally guilty, of course. But it isn’t possible to picket “49% of white people” or “53% of Latino voters,” for example. Regardless of the voting percentages of individual Mormons/Catholics/etc., the churches themselves promoted a particular vote.
Are you saying that if the right to marry had been stripped from black couples again (as it once was in many states), that black people would not feel the urge to protest, because they can still go on “living?”
It certainly is. And gay people are finally standing up to it. I wish that loud and energetic (but not violent) demonstrations had occurred throughout the state before election day.
By: Phil on November 11, 2008
at 2:40 am
The video went along with the poll Phil. Threats weren’t the focus of that video, just the demonstrations.
The rest of my article covered the threats in which many would love to physically harm those who disagreed with them on Prop 8.
I believe in anyone’s freedom to protest as I voted on the poll - for peaceful demonstrations. But it is wrong - no matter who it is - to plan on hurting people because you aren’t happy.
Well, sadly the LGBT community, but good for the rest of us, that California was taken very lightly. I’m sure the last thing that you folks thought was that good ole’ liberal Cali was going to go down to religious conservatives.
I know it’s not over but I just hope people can keep cool heads and not try to hurt anyone. Make your voices heard but peacefully.
By: Carlotta on November 11, 2008
at 9:12 am
I agree.
I do think it’s a good thing that we live in a country where the majority of all protests are nonviolent, and the majority of violence at protests is nonlethal.
It’s not unpredictable, though, that passions would ride higher against churches who oppose a political measure. Throughout history, the reaction when one group tries to force another to follow a different religion has been violence. If a bank, say, had made the statement that “Prop 8 will help our economy because of XYZ,” would people be as angry as they are when Mormons, Catholics, and others say, “Your God is wrong! Our God is right! So we will use our votes to rip your marriages apart, even though they were blessed by your church and performed according to the laws of the state.”
One reason for the success of the Mormon Church is that they historically use persuasion and communication as tools to win converts. In this election, they used money, and they advocated a vote to destroy the marriages of people who had already been married. (To be clear, the Church used persuasion to advocate a vote, but the vote itself was to use the power of the state to force people to live according to a particular Mormon belief.)
I read once that, of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world, approximately 2/3 are religious in nature. One key to America’s success has been to, generally, avoid forcing people to live according to religious beliefs that they do not hold.
By: Phil on November 11, 2008
at 7:50 pm
Unfortunately Phil, there will always be conflicts such as what we have now because the religious have voices and views too!
That’s quite intolerant of people to want the religious silenced so that you can get your way! It’s either the religious views or the non-religious views that end up being “forced” on people.
I guess you just can’t see that your views are also “forced” if they win out.
By: Carlotta on November 12, 2008
at 8:36 am
Gay Activists are using donor lists to target individuals who donated to prop 8. This guy already lost his job this morning. We have to stand up and help support these people who are being persecuted for their personal beliefs in their employment. People need to know what’s going on.
Who is next? Where is the image of love and tolerance now?
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/persecution-continues-martyrs-for-prop-8/
By: beetlebabee on November 12, 2008
at 3:34 pm
Carlotta, you are presenting a false dichotomy. A compromise would have been a situation where gay married couples and straight married couples live in the state side by side. You and the Mormon Church fought against equality.
Rape victims are not “forcing their views” onto rapists when they insist on their right not to be raped.
Couples are not “forcing their views” onto their neighbors when they insist on their right to remain married.
This is not to say that supporting Prop 8 is equal to rape. However, asking to be left alone is not the same as “forcing your views onto someone.”
Couples who say “we would like to remain married” or asking to be left alone.
People, like you, Neil, Fred Phelps, and the Knights of Columbus, who say “we want to end your marriages are, indeed, forcing something onto other people. To insist otherwise is to engage in Orwellian doublespeak, Carlotta.
beetlebabee: are you saying that it is wrong to use legal means of persuasion–such as boycotts–to affect someone’s employment, but it is perfectly legitimate to use legal means of persuasion to affect someone’s marriage? Aren’t you being hypocritical?
Scott Eckern used the means at his disposal to rip apart the legal marriages of people he didn’t even know. Now, supporters of those victims are using the means at their disposal–letter writing and boycotts– to retaliate. If his actions were reasonable, then it seems pretty clear that his opponents’ actions are reasonable too.
If their actions are unreasonable, then, obviously, his were even worse.
Further, the article that you link to makes it clear that Scott Eckern chose to resign. He was not fired. What causes you to believe that he was “forced” to resign?
By: Phil on November 12, 2008
at 10:36 pm
Phil, we will never agree upon the term “equal rights.” Because I will never support equal rights of “behaviors” which is the case of gay marriage. Gays have as much equal rights to anything else heterosexuals have, but protesting for the right to a behavior is quite different. Unfortunately, our Governor doesn’t see that difference as he equates homosexual behavior to the same rights of interracial couples desiring to marry.
Let’s agree to disagree on this whole “equal rights” discussion. We’ll never see eye to eye on that.
So Phil, bring something new or you’ll leave me no choice but to start deleting or editing your comments.
By: Carlotta on November 12, 2008
at 10:44 pm
Presumably, questions are permissible additions to the discussion..?
I’m curious what the behavior is that you find objectionable in a gay marriage. Because it seems pretty clear that what you oppose is not, in fact, a behavior–that your opposition is symbolic. To my knowledge, you haven’t said that you believe gay sex (or other physical behavior, like kissing, cuddling, holding hands, etc.) should be illegal.
Correct me if I’m wrong. Do you believe that the state should criminalize gay behavior?
By: Phil on November 12, 2008
at 11:42 pm
Yes Phil, questions are okay as long as they’re not redundant.
The immoral behavior of homosexuality is the focus of this discussion Phil. People are protesting for the right to be immoral - and that I don’t support one bit.
So most bible believing Christians who believe homosexuality to be an immoral lifestyle aren’t going to support anyone’s right to do it - let alone marriage!
Since homosexual acts can be performed in the privacy of one’s bedroom, then who’s going to go against that? Not me. But now bringing it in the open publicly, that sets the homosexual in the position of people voicing their opinion against them - and Prop 8 was proof of that.
I would never try to make it illegal to have homosexual sex, but marriage? Marriage is public, legal and thus homosexuality has now been placed out of the bedroom and to the public arena.
People vote according to their views and beliefs in life. Most homosexuals who want to be married do not have a consciousness towards God and could care less what the bible says about it and thus will vote accordingly. Many Christians vote according to their consciousness.
Not a forcing of one’s beliefs, but people voting according to their own beliefs. And that’s the belief that homosexuality is immoral.
By: Carlotta on November 13, 2008
at 9:39 am
I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying.
What is the difference between what you just said here, and saying, “Most homosexual have different religious beliefs than I do, and thus I will vote to make sure that they cannot do something that is against my beliefs.”
If there is a difference, then you’re not explaining it well.
By: Phil on November 13, 2008
at 2:26 pm
No difference.
By: Carlotta on November 13, 2008
at 4:58 pm
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, then:
“Voting to make sure that people who have different religious beliefs than me cannot do something that is against my beliefs”
is not “forcing my beliefs” onto someone?
How do you figure?
By: Phil on November 13, 2008
at 5:32 pm
Your statement proves what I’ve been saying all along. If we Christians are forcing our beliefs on people, then others would be forcing their “beliefs” as well!
Get the picture? It doesn’t matter who’s vote wins, because both parties are exercising their right to vote according to their own beliefs.
So, the LGBTQ community needs to stop crying the blues accusing others of “forcing” their beliefs when they would do no differently!
By: Carlotta on November 13, 2008
at 5:42 pm
By the way, what is the “Q” at the end of LGBTQ? Is this acceptable to most gays or just the LGBT? I just recently started seeing the “Q” quite a bit.
By: Carlotta on November 13, 2008
at 5:45 pm
Carlotta, how have I, or any other gay person, tried to use the force of law to prevent you from doing something that is against my religion?
To my knowledge, there isn’t a single activity that you partake in that I have tried to ban because it’s against my religion. I might try to persuade you to change your behavior, but that’s different from using force, isn’t it?
So, it really isn’t a case of “no matter what, someone is going to lose!” If we can both get married, then neither of us is being forced to change our behavior.
As you’ve said, you want to force me not to do something that is against your religion.
…what have I tried to force you not to do?
By: Phil on November 13, 2008
at 9:35 pm
Carlotta,
As I understand it, the “Q” is for questioning. I believe the thinking is, for the rather uber-PC collection of individuals that is the LBGT community, we ought not expect someone to label themselves in order to enjoy equal rights.
Or, as is the case with groups and clubs, they try to be inclusive of anyone, even if they don’t think of themselves as “gay” or “lesbian.” I’ve also heard that the gay stands for “queer,” which is both an effort to “reclaim” an offensive epithet and also a catch-all term.
As far as I’m concerned, LGBT is fine for political discussion. To be honest, I’m fairly conservative when it comes to the gay community, such that I think “gay and lesbian” is really a redundant phrase.
But…that ship has sailed, and I doubt that I’ll accomplish much by using old terminology.
By: Phil on November 13, 2008
at 10:19 pm
Phil, the point is that no one is going to be happy 100% happy because someone’s beliefs will be overruled. You don’t understand that many people consider the homosexual lifestyle immoral, thus, you’d be forcing those folks against their conscious if your way prevails.
But let’s agree to disagree on this and no more talk about “forcing” of one another’s belief. You truly don’t get it so we must leave it alone.
About the Q, thanks for the clarification and I’ll just continue using LGBT or just Gays in my writing.
By: Carlotta on November 14, 2008
at 7:35 am
You didn’t answer the question, Carlotta. What am I forcing them to do or not do based on my religious beliefs.
It’s not that I “don’t get it.” You agreed with the statement that you voted to prevent me from doing something that was against your beliefs.
So, what did I force you to do, or prevent you from doing? It’s a simple question, and based on what you’ve been saying, it should be easy for you to answer.
By: Phil on November 14, 2008
at 12:52 pm
Phil, your questions were already answered. Please read over my cazillion posts and comments and you’ll find your answer there.
Discussion closed (on mine and yours only).
By: Carlotta on November 14, 2008
at 1:01 pm
Paula said: yes gay are heading to YOUR churches this week…
Check out the schedule on our page to see if yours is one of them.
Well, Paula, I checked out your page and I found no schedule of gays protesting at churches. So I still don’t know if you are coming to my church. I doubt it because I don’t live in a state where this is happening. God willing you will not do this in my state. But please don’t say that you have a schedule of churches to visit when you don’t.
By the way: If you persecute people who are minding their own business attending churches, then it will turn the public away from you. Persecute Christians and it will be bad PR for your cause.
By: Ceecee on November 24, 2008
at 10:35 pm